Our readers will recall that the fee was suspended last month after an appellate court ruled last November that in light of the department’s termination of the Yucca Mountain repository program, DOE could not continue to collect the surcharge of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour on consumers of nuclear-generated electricity. Here's what NEI's Marv Fertel had to say last month when the fee was finally suspended.

A $20 billion fund has power to change things without even spending it. This could be used as assurance to justify widespread low-interest loans for nuclear construction without any fees or claims of subsidy - it's the nuclear industry that is subsidizing the government right now, after all.

The waste fee is/was paid by electricity consumers, not "the nuclear industry." That fee is for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors, not development of the nuclear power industry.

NEI is thumping its chest over Harry Reid smirking while you filed suit to stop the collection of financial resources needed to review an active license application, close the fuel cycle and regain waste confidence? Guys, your lawyers are myopic, you've won a lawsuit this is going to lose you the war. It isn't just about resuming NWF contributions (BTW, that is such a shallow analysis that it hurts my head just reading it) because the momentum and critical mass for the entire program has been obliterated. Stopping the contributions was a totally wasted effort. You guys were duped and diverted. The focus should have been on the Mandamus, contempt of the court with some jail time to think about it, no confidence votes in Congress, and investigations of malfeasance in the Senate ML office and White House, and misfeasance in the Jaczko, MacFarlane, Chu and Moniz regiemes.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…